Giving nature a voice in global decision-making
The natural capital front-line assessment
The Earth Voice Index is an annual global index that converts the structured field perceptions of vetted environmental NGOs into a decision-grade signal on the condition, pressures and resilience of natural capital — validated by an independent North–South academic consortium.
We are assembling a consortium of three to five aligned foundations to fund a CHF 700,000, 48-week Minimum Viable Product: 15–20 countries, more than 200 vetted NGOs, one inaugural report, one Geneva launch.
The problem
Ecosystems degrade faster than data systems can track them
Humanity has transgressed six of nine planetary boundaries. Monitored vertebrate populations have declined by an average of 73% since 1970. Deforestation, ocean acidification, freshwater depletion, biodiversity collapse and soil degradation are unfolding simultaneously and interactively.
Yet investors, governments and corporations continue to operate with an incomplete information set. Existing monitoring tools are built on scientific data and statistical modelling, collected at intervals of two to four years, and communicated in technical formats that do not translate into policy or investment decisions.
The missing signal
Environmental NGOs are positioned to see it first — and nobody aggregates what they see
Field organisations are present on the ground 365 days a year, in places no satellite or academic team covers continuously. Illegal logging in the Amazon, coral bleaching in the Pacific and mining incursions in Central African forests were each documented first by field NGOs — sometimes years before appearing in scientific databases.
Their collective intelligence has never been systematically aggregated into a single, comparable annual signal. That is the gap the Earth Voice Index is built to fill.
That field perception systematically leads scientific data is a well-grounded hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact. Formal retrospective validation — correlating historical NGO assessments against subsequent scientific indicators — is a designed output of the MVP and part of the academic consortium's mandate. See Q3 in the investor FAQ.
What the index produces
Four complementary outputs, published annually
The EVI combines current-state assessment with forward-looking intelligence. Each output is designed to be citable, comparable year on year, and legible to a non-specialist decision-maker. The first three are committed MVP deliverables; the fourth is a predictive layer currently under exploration.
EVI Global Score
A composite annual score from 0 to 100 reflecting the aggregate NGO assessment of natural capital condition (40%), trend (30%) and resilience (30%), weighted and bias-corrected by the academic consortium.
Earth Voice Threat Ranking
An annual ranking of the ten most frequently cited drivers of natural capital degradation, drawn from a controlled taxonomy and directly comparable year on year.
Setback & Progress Monitor
Structured qualitative signals on the most significant setbacks and positive developments observed by field organisations over the preceding twelve months.
AI Earth Board
A predictive layer under exploration: curated AI agents, specialised by theme and geography, would generate one-year probabilistic forecasts submitted to the NGO panel for reaction and calibration.
Methodology, scoring weights and aggregation rules are set out on the methodology page and will be published in full in the EVI methodology handbook.
Positioning
EVI does not compete with existing indices — it completes them
A comprehensive review of the existing landscape confirms a genuinely differentiated position. EVI provides the operational perception layer that scientific and economic instruments cannot supply.
| Category | Key examples | EVI differentiation |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific state-of-nature indices | WWF Living Planet Index, IUCN Red List Index, Planetary Boundaries | Top-down and data-driven; they do not capture field perception or early-warning signals |
| Economic natural capital tools | World Bank Changing Wealth of Nations, UNEP Inclusive Wealth Index | Powerful for economists; not grounded in civil society expertise |
| Business and finance frameworks | TNFD, ENCORE, SBTN | Risk management tools rather than perception indices; highly complementary to EVI |
| Perception surveys | WEF Global Risks Report, GlobeScan Sustainability Leaders Survey | The closest methodological analogy — but neither gives structured voice to environmental NGOs on natural capital |
Why now
The regulatory window is opening
The EU CSRD and the TNFD framework have established data collection requirements for nature-related risks and impacts. As these frameworks mature, their next stage will be implementation targets: thresholds, mandatory disclosures, and performance benchmarks that require comparable, decision-grade reference data.
The EVI is designed to become that reference. Institutions that participate in or adopt EVI now will be positioned ahead of an inevitable compliance curve rather than reacting to it. There is a narrow window in which to shape what the standard looks like.
Built for three primary audiences
- Environmental NGOs gain a globally amplified platform, peer-benchmarking tools, and direct participation in EVI revenue streams — turning their data contribution into a durable institutional asset.
- Financial institutions and investors gain a decision-grade nature-risk signal that complements TNFD and CSRD-required disclosures, enabling portfolio alignment with natural capital frameworks.
- Governments and international bodies gain an annual accountability benchmark: a civil-society-grounded mirror to their own environmental commitments.
Corporations, academic researchers, media and citizens form the secondary audience for the annual publication and the country-level snapshots.
Credibility by design
Three structural commitments, made before the first survey
An academic consortium, chosen competitively
A North–South university consortium — selected through an open Request for Proposals, with a mandatory Global South institution and a dedicated CHF 85,000 budget — co-designs the questionnaire, reviews the scoring model, and certifies the final score free of geographic, size or advocacy bias.
Independence from those who fund it
Sponsors have no role in questionnaire design, scoring or publication decisions. Methodology is governed by an independent scientific committee. A published Ethics and Independence Charter governs funding safeguards and conflicts of interest.
A panel that is vetted, balanced and refreshed
A three-layer eligibility, categorisation and sampling model actively prevents over-representation of large Western organisations, with an independent review committee, tiered weighting, and full re-vetting every three years.
What the MVP is designed to prove
Several questions about EVI cannot be definitively answered before launch. Will NGOs participate at scale? Will the signal prove decision-relevant? Will the methodology withstand expert scrutiny? These are not weaknesses — they are precisely the questions a well-designed MVP is built to answer through direct confrontation with reality. Sponsors are being asked to co-create the evidence base that will make EVI a globally authoritative reference index.
Phase I · Minimum Viable Product
Become a founding co-funder
We are seeking three to five aligned foundations to co-fund the CHF 700,000 MVP. Founding co-funders become co-architects of a new annual reference — and shape it while its architecture is still being set.